c. 8), as perfectly decisive in favour of its Greek origin" Our translators: returned (from the council at Ephesus) and delivered to Isaac and Miesrob the letters and decrees of this assembly, with a copy of the Bible carefully written, which, as soon as Isaac and Miesrob received, they cheerfully submitted to the task of again translating what they had translated twice before. But as they were deficient in knowledge, and many parts were rendered imperfectly, they sent us to the famous school at Alexandria to learn this excellent language." 'Here," says Michaelis, "is a full and credible account of the care bestowed by the Armenians on that version of the Bible, and that they translated it twice from the Syriac, and a third time from the Greek. Hence we may assign the reason why the readings of the Armenian version are so frequently different from the Greek."

66

It is but justice, at the same time, to our author, to say that this statement, instead of weakening, greatly strengthens his argument for the very early existence of a Syriac translation of the New Testament.

C, p. 163. The words in righ,” says Mr Bloomfield, “almost all modern Commentators unite in rendering in an epistle,' an earlier epistle :' and they suppose it to have reference to some former Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians; though no such has come down to us, nor has the existence of any such been (alleged) on any credible evidence of ecclesiastical antiquity. Indeed, this hypothesis involves much difficulty, and is liable to many objections. Why (for example) should it not have been preserved as well as the later ones? Now, those who dress up the abovementioned notion in its most specious shape, tell us, that the Epistle in question was a very brief one, and just sent off when the messengers from the Corinthians arrived. All this, however, is gratis dictum. There is not a particle of evidence in support of it. For, as to the words themselves, they can by no means be tortured to signify any such thing, even by implication. To admit this interpretation, something ought to have been before said of this Epistle, which, as they pretend, almost passed the messengers on the road, and of which, had there been such an Epistle so written and so sent, the Apostle could not but directly have made mention. Besides, who can tolerate such a licentious use of the article, which would be unparalleled in irregularity?"

For these reasons, Mr Bloomfield accedes, and we think rightly does so, to the opinion of the Greek Commentators, most Latin ones, and many, though only a minority, of the moderns, that is for Turn, as in kindred passages at Rom. xvi, 22, 2 Thess, iii, 14, Col. iv, 16, 1 Thess. v, 27; many other examples of which idiom are adduced by Glassius and Macknight. —Eygay, “I have (already or just) written to you," namely, at verses 2 and 7 of this chapter. That gaya may have this signification, none can doubt who know the force of the Aorist; and so it occurs in ix, 15, 1 John ii, 12, 14. Otherwise, as Bishop Middleton observes, the sentence at verse 11, vì di iyaya, would have been wid yeapw, but now I write.' And though in 2 Cor. vii, 8, won son in the Epistle,' has reference to the former Epistle, yet there the Epistle had been mentioned. Mr Slade (after Bishop Middleton) renders I have been writing to you;' which comes to much the same sense."

66

The chief difficulty in the last-mentioned interpretation is involved in ,now,' which Middleton and Slade elude by rendering, But on the present occasion I have been writing to you;' or, my purpose in writing to you is this.' There is, however, something so languid in this signification of ì, and so arbitrary in the sense thus elicited from ygada ipiv,

that it is utterly inadmissible. Indeed, it cannot be true. For it was not the main purpose of St Paul in writing this Epistle to forbid Christians to associate with immoral brethren.—(See the Întroduction of Krause and Macknight to this Epistle.) I prefer to adopt the opinion of Wolf, that the is not opposed to the preceding phrase I have written unto you,' but is rather explicatory of it."

"I am not aware that any of the ancient Fathers ever referred the words to any other Epistle than the present; yet Theodoret seems not to have been ignorant of the opinion; for he says, i ; in what Epistle?' i aur Taury, in this very Epistle.' And he there observes, that the whole passage is explanatory of what was meant in the preceding one." -Critical Digest, vol. vi, p. 342.

D, p. 165. "Some," says Theodoret, "imagine Paul to have written an Epistle to the Laodiceans, and accordingly produce a certain forged Epistle so entitled; but the holy Apostle does not say r IPO Aaodiærías, the Epistle to Laodicea,' but he 'EK Anodisías, the Epistle from Laodicea.'

E, p. 198. Dr Alexander has committed a small oversight here; for the words "all which he had heard was in accordance with the Scriptures," precede instead of coming after his former quotation. But we notice this, chiefly with the view of giving the whole passage from Irenæus' Letter to Florinus, as recorded by Eusebius. "While but a youth, I saw you in lower Asia with Polycarp, acting illustriously in the royal court, and earnestly striving to recommend yourself to his esteem. For what then took place I recollect much better than I do more recent events; the lessons of youth growing up with the mind and actually entering into it; so that I can speak of the very spot where the blessed Polycarp sat whilst discoursing; of his manner when approaching and retiring from it; the whole impression of his character and appearance of his frame; the addresses which he made to the people; the familiar intercourse which, as he related, he had held with John, and the rest who had seen the Lord himself; and how he rehearsed their words, and all that he had heard from them concerning him. All things likewise respecting his miracles and doctrine which he had received from those who had themselves been eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, Polycarp narrated in exact accordance with the Scriptures. And these things I then, through the mercy of God bestowed on me, diligently listened to, recording them not on paper, but on my very heart; and still, by the grace of God, I fondly remember and meditate on them. I can testify also, before God, that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter ever heard any thing of that kind" (viz. heretical or contrary to Scripture doctrine), "he would exclaim, and closing his ears, as he was wont, say, O gracious God, to what times hast thou kept me, that I should have to endure such things!' Then would he fly from the place where he was sitting or standing, when such doctrines reached his ears; as may be clearly proved also from the letters which he sent either to neighbouring churches, strengthening them, or to some of his brethren, admonishing and exhorting them."

F, p. 201. Our author's translation of this clause is particularly incorrect; unless his edition of Irenæus be very different from any we have seen. For it stands thus in the original, or rather the Latin, the Greek of this passage being lost, "In unum Deum credentes fabricatorem cœli et terræ,

6

et omnium quæ in eis sunt, per Christum Jesum Dei Filium: Qui propter eminentissimam erga figmentum suum dilectionem, eam quæ esset ex Virgine generationem sustinuit, ipse per se hominem adunans Deo, et passus sub Pontio Pilato, et resurgens, et in claritate receptus, in gloria venturus, Salvator eorum qui salvantur, et judex eorum qui judicantur, et mittens in ignem æternum transfiguratores veritatis, et contemptores Patris sui et adventus ejus: i. e. Believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and all things that are in them, by Christ Jesus the Son of God: who, for his exceeding great love towards his own creature, underwent the generation that was to be of a virgin, himself uniting by himself man to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and being received into the brightness (i. e. of heaven), will come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire the perverters of the truth, and the contemners of his father, and his own coming."

Though from the want of the article in Latin, it is not a little difficult at times to determine the precise meaning of clauses which its presence, if they had been given in Greek, would have rendered perfectly definite, there may be some doubt whether, by the words "eam quæ esset ex Virgine generationem sustinuit," more was designed to be expressed than simply our Lord's "submitting to be born of a Virgin," as Dr Alexander translates them; we are disposed to consider Irenæus as having intended to specify His generation or birth of the promised Virgin, as being an article of the primitive faith, both in distinction from, and in addition to, that "prolatio inenarrabilis, or præclara ab altissimo Pater genitura, i. e. that "unutterable bringing forth, or glorious generation from the Most High Father," on which he elsewhere repeatedly, and at large, insists.

G, p. 202. Here again, we regret to say, Dr Alexander's translation of this important passage is by no means what could be wished: several clauses being entirely omitted, while others are very inaccurately rendered. And this is the more unaccountable, that we have the advantage both of the Greek and Latin, for enabling us to understand and translate it aright. In the following rendering, we have given it as nearly as the idiom and construction of the English will admit :

"The church planted by the Apostles and their disciples throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, have received the faith; which is, In one God, Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them: And in one Christ Jesus the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation: And in the Holy Spirit, who by the prophets proclaimed the (ras axovoras) dispensations, and the advents, and the generation of (or, birth by) a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the embodied reception into the heavens, of our beloved Lord Christ Jesus; and his coming from the heavens in the glory of the Father, to gather together into one all things," and to raise every individual possessed of humanity; that to our Lord Christ Jesus, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee may bow of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue confess to him, that he may execute righteous judgment upon all:-send wicked spirits, and fallen and apostate angels, and ungodly, and unjust, and lawless, and blaspheming men, into eternal fire: but, gratuitously bestowing life on the just

ανακεφαλαιώσασθαι, Ephes. 1, 10,

and holy, who have kept his commandments, and persevered in his love, some, indeed, from the beginning, and others after repentance, may confer on them immortality, and surround them with eternal glory,

H, p. 212. "Should it occur to any one, that to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures by the testimony of the Fathers, is to sanction the traditions of the church of Rome, they ought to consider that there is a radical distinction between these two cases. Testimony is a first principle, universally acknowledged as authoritative in its own province, as far as it is unexceptionable. The whole business of the world proceeds on this principle, and without it human affairs would run into utter confusion. That historical testimony is a legitimate source of evidence, the general sentiments of mankind admit, in the universal appeal to history for the knowledge of past events. Historical testimony may be false, but this is not peculiar to this class of first principles. We are liable to be deceived on all subjects to which our faculties are directed; but there are means by which historical evidence may be ascertained. Its proof may vary from the lowest degree of probability to the highest degree of certainty. Of many things recorded even in profane history, we can have no more doubt than we can have of truths which contain their own evidence. Now, the stress laid on the testimony of the ancient writers that have been quoted, is warranted by the most cautious laws of historical evidence; and it cannot be rejected, without entirely rejecting history as a legitimate ground of knowledge. That such writers did give such testimony, is as indisputable as any historical fact can be. And the proof of this lies open to every man who has time, opportunity, and ability, to examine the subject. If so, there is no reason to reject, as insufficient, in proof of the authenticity of the Bible, the same kind of evidence that is allowed to prove any other fact. But the traditions of the Church of Rome are not of this nature. They are not historical at all. They have not been written. They are nowhere to be found. It is not pretended by their friends that they possess historical evidence. They are recommended altogether on another foundation-the authority of the Church. It is said that the Church has had them treasured up in secret; but we can have no higher assurance of their authenticity than what we are willing to rest on the authority of the Church. The difference, then, between the two cases is manifest and essential; and clearer historical proof cannot be exhibited on any subject, than has been adduced for the genuineness and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures."-Haldane's "Evidence, &c. of Divine Revelation," vol. i. pp. 143, 144.

I, p. 213. We close our Notes on the whole of Dr Alexander's most valuable treatise, as we did those on the first part, with some additional extracts from the above work of Mr Haldane's, relative, first, to a very important topic, which, though Dr A. has by no means left untouched, he has thought it unnecessary to make the subject of any separate remarks; and then to the care of Divine Providence over the Scriptures; and the harmony of all their contents:

"It has been asserted that the question of the Canon is a point of eru. dition, not of divine revelation.' This is to undermine both the certainty and the importance of the Sacred Canon. The assertion, that the question of the Canon is not a point of revelation, is false. It is not true either of the Old Testament or of the New. The integrity of the Canon of the Old Testament is a matter of revelation, as much as any thing contained in the

Bible. This is attested, as has been shown, by the whole nation of the Jews, to whom it was committed; and their fidelity to the truth has been avouched by the Lord and his Apostles. Is not this revelation? The integrity of the Canon of the New Testament is equally a point of revelation. As God had said to the Jews, Ye are my witnesses,' and as they received the lively oracles to give unto us,' Acts vii, 38; so the Lord Jesus said to the Apostles Ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.' The first churches received the New Testament Scriptures from these witnesses of the Lord, and thus had inspired authority for those books. It was not left to erudition or reasoning to collect that they were a revelation from God. This the first Christians knew from the testimony of those who wrote them. They could not be more assured that the things taught were from God, than they were that the writings which contained them were from God. The integrity of the Sacred Canon is, then, a matter of revelation, conveyed to us by testimony, like every thing contained in the Scriptures.

"While it has been denied that the question of the Canon is a point of revelation, it has been asserted that it is a point of erudition. But erudition has nothing farther to do with the question, than as it may be employed in conveying to us the testimony. Erudition did not produce the revelation of the Canon. If the Canon had not been a point of revelation, erudition could never have made it so for erudition can create nothing; it can only investigate and confirm truth, and testify to that which exists, or detect error. We receive the Canon of Scripture by revelation, in the same way that the Jews received the Law which was given from Mount Sinai. Only one generation of the Jews witnessed the giving of the Law, but to all future generations of that people it was equally a matter of revelation. The knowledge of this was conveyed to them by testimony. In the same way Christians, in their successive generations, received the Scripture as a matter of revelation. The testimony through which this is received, must, indeed, be translated from a foreign language; but so must the account brought to us of any occurrence, the most trivial, that takes place in a foreign country. If in this sense the question of the Canon be called a point of erudition, the Gospel itself must be called a point of erudition; for it, too, must be translated from the original language in which it was announced, as also must every thing which the Scriptures contain. When a preacher inculcates the belief of the Gospel, or of a doctrine of Scripture, or obedience to any duty, would he be warranted in telling his audience that these are questions of erudition, not of Divine revelation? Erudition may be allowed its full value, without suspending on it the authority of the Word of God.

"The assertion that the question of the Canon is a point of erudition, not of Divine revelation, is subversive of the whole of revelation. We have no way of knowing that the miracles related in the Scriptures were wrought, and that the doctrines inculcated were taught, but by testimony and the internal evidence of the books themselves. We have the evidence of miracles, as that evidence comes to us by the testimony which vouches the authenticity of the inspired books. As far as the genuineness and authenticity of any book are brought into suspicion, so far is every thing contained in it brought into suspicion. For it should always be remembered, that there is no greater absurdity than to question the claim of a book to a place in the Canon, and at the same time to acknowledge its contents to be a revelation from God. There can be no evidence that the